Is Scott Walker done?

I've taken a lot of heat for reporting on the many, many inconsistencies and "evolutions" in Scott Walker's positions, but I think Walker has finally broken an egg that can't be re-shelled. He reportedly endorsed amnesty not six years ago, not two years ago, but two weeks ago, in a private group dinner:

... during the March 13 New Hampshire dinner, organized by New Hampshire Republican Party Chairwoman Jennifer Horn at the Copper Door Restaurant in Bedford, Mr. Walker said undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be deported, and he mocked 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s suggestion that they would “self-deport,” according to people who were there.

Instead, they said, Mr. Walker said undocumented immigrants should be allowed to “eventually get their citizenship without being given preferential treatment” ahead of people already in line to obtain citizenship.

“He said no to citizenship now, but later they could get it,” said Bill Greiner, an owner of the Copper Door restaurant. Ken Merrifield, mayor of Franklin, N.H., who also attended, said Mr. Walker proposed that illegal immigrants should “get to the back of the line for citizenship” but not be deported. Three separate sources at the dinner confirmed Walker’s remarks to the Journal.

To be fair, Scott Walker's spokesman denies making these comments, but he's lost all credibility. Three separate sources confirmed he said this. He has been publicly pro-amnesty for many, many years, going back as recently as two years ago.

For more than a decade before seriously entertaining a presidential campaign, Mr. Walker publicly favored a broad overhaul of immigration laws.

In 2006, he signed another county resolution backing the immigration proposal written by Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) andEdward Kennedy (D., Mass.) that would have granted legal status to many illegal immigrants.

As late as 2013, Mr. Walker told Politico he backed a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and told the Wausau Daily Herald more border security wasn’t necessary. “You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that,” he told the Wisconsin paper in a videotaped interview. “To me, I don’t know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place.”

Mr. Walker has shifted his stances on other aspects of immigration law. In May 2010, after Arizona lawmakers passed tough restrictions on illegal immigrants, he told the Associated Press he had “serious concerns” about the law because it “impedes on the inherent right of the federal government to do its job and to protect our borders, and also because in America we don’t want our citizens getting pulled over because of how they look.”

Hours later, Mr. Walker, then in a GOP primary for governor, reversed himself. “I too would sign the Arizona immigration bill,” he said, after conservatives inundated his Facebook page to criticize his first position.

Walker has also flip-flopped on a large number of other issues. He's against ethanol mandates in Wisconsin but for them in Iowa? What does that even mean? You cannot have mandates apply on a state-by-state level.

He also says he was for right-to-work legislation but had to be pushed into signing it by his own legislature.

He's been tough taking on the unions, but that alone doesn't make him conservative; that alone makes him a low-fat version of Chris Christie.

What makes this worse is not just that Walker can't be trusted on amnesty and border security; he can't be trusted on anything he says he believes in. If he was untruthful about such a key issue as immigration, telling the public one thing and private audiences another, there is no reason to believe anything else he has said.

I simply don't think Scott Walker is suitable or trustworthy enough to be nominated for president, and I suspect that after this latest revelation, many Republican primary voters will feel the same way.

I've taken a lot of heat for reporting on the many, many inconsistencies and "evolutions" in Scott Walker's positions, but I think Walker has finally broken an egg that can't be re-shelled. He reportedly endorsed amnesty not six years ago, not two years ago, but two weeks ago, in a private group dinner:

... during the March 13 New Hampshire dinner, organized by New Hampshire Republican Party Chairwoman Jennifer Horn at the Copper Door Restaurant in Bedford, Mr. Walker said undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be deported, and he mocked 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s suggestion that they would “self-deport,” according to people who were there.

Instead, they said, Mr. Walker said undocumented immigrants should be allowed to “eventually get their citizenship without being given preferential treatment” ahead of people already in line to obtain citizenship.

“He said no to citizenship now, but later they could get it,” said Bill Greiner, an owner of the Copper Door restaurant. Ken Merrifield, mayor of Franklin, N.H., who also attended, said Mr. Walker proposed that illegal immigrants should “get to the back of the line for citizenship” but not be deported. Three separate sources at the dinner confirmed Walker’s remarks to the Journal.

To be fair, Scott Walker's spokesman denies making these comments, but he's lost all credibility. Three separate sources confirmed he said this. He has been publicly pro-amnesty for many, many years, going back as recently as two years ago.

For more than a decade before seriously entertaining a presidential campaign, Mr. Walker publicly favored a broad overhaul of immigration laws.

In 2006, he signed another county resolution backing the immigration proposal written by Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) andEdward Kennedy (D., Mass.) that would have granted legal status to many illegal immigrants.

As late as 2013, Mr. Walker told Politico he backed a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and told the Wausau Daily Herald more border security wasn’t necessary. “You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that,” he told the Wisconsin paper in a videotaped interview. “To me, I don’t know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place.”

Mr. Walker has shifted his stances on other aspects of immigration law. In May 2010, after Arizona lawmakers passed tough restrictions on illegal immigrants, he told the Associated Press he had “serious concerns” about the law because it “impedes on the inherent right of the federal government to do its job and to protect our borders, and also because in America we don’t want our citizens getting pulled over because of how they look.”

Hours later, Mr. Walker, then in a GOP primary for governor, reversed himself. “I too would sign the Arizona immigration bill,” he said, after conservatives inundated his Facebook page to criticize his first position.

Walker has also flip-flopped on a large number of other issues. He's against ethanol mandates in Wisconsin but for them in Iowa? What does that even mean? You cannot have mandates apply on a state-by-state level.

He also says he was for right-to-work legislation but had to be pushed into signing it by his own legislature.

He's been tough taking on the unions, but that alone doesn't make him conservative; that alone makes him a low-fat version of Chris Christie.

What makes this worse is not just that Walker can't be trusted on amnesty and border security; he can't be trusted on anything he says he believes in. If he was untruthful about such a key issue as immigration, telling the public one thing and private audiences another, there is no reason to believe anything else he has said.

I simply don't think Scott Walker is suitable or trustworthy enough to be nominated for president, and I suspect that after this latest revelation, many Republican primary voters will feel the same way.